|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44240 Posts
On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan.
For as long as America stays really fucking racist, yes, absolutely, I’ll let them win the small battle while winning the war. If the only way to get a progressive legislative agenda for racial justice through is if a white guy is at the podium then fuck it, let’s have a white guy at the podium.
The war is much, much bigger than the colour of the president’s skin but the racists don’t see that because they’re a bunch of fucking morons. You put a white guy in the White House and they won’t care what he does, it’s not like they can read. But put a black guy there and they’ll notice that, they’ll be able to work it out from the moving pictures.
Hillary was right about America’s deplorables, though she dramatically underestimated their number. You’re not going to win them over with rhetoric, they lack the critical thinking. Just wait for them to die out while sneaking history books into the schools where their kids go to learn football.
|
On April 14 2026 09:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. For as long as America stays really fucking racist, yes, absolutely, I’ll let them win the small battle while winning the war. If the only way to get a progressive legislative agenda for racial justice through is if a white guy is at the podium then fuck it, let’s have a white guy at the podium. The war is much, much bigger than the colour of the president’s skin but the racists don’t see that because they’re a bunch of fucking morons. You put a white guy in the White House and they won’t care what he does, it’s not like they can read. But put a black guy there and they’ll notice that, they’ll be able to work it out from the moving pictures. Hillary was right about America’s deplorables, though she dramatically underestimated their number. You’re not going to win them over with rhetoric, they lack the critical thinking. Just wait for them to die out while sneaking history books into the schools where their kids go to learn football.
That may have worked 20 years ago, but fox news learned to read and is now blasting the deplorables to tell them that the old white man is secretly a woke transgender murdered indigenous woman. And if not fox news then an AI/trollfarm deepfake on their TikTok/Instagram/Twitter. Thanks, Obama!
|
On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan.
To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context.
Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people/lurkers than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here.
|
United States44240 Posts
On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here.
To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile.
|
Kwark, racist backlash against Obama doesn't explain why the UK voted for Brexit, Poland for Nawrocki, Czechia for Babis, etc. The common denominator here is right-wing media and social media rotting people's brains.
|
United States44240 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:01 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, racist backlash against Obama doesn't explain why the UK voted for Brexit, Poland for Nawrocki, Czechia for Babis, etc. The common denominator here is right-wing media and social media rotting people's brains.
You're right about there being a broader global pattern, but I think you're wrong if you're skipping over just how triggered Obama made American racists. Two things can be true.
|
They voted for Reagan and Bush twice each before Obama was a household name. Americans are just fucking stupid.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
This is going to sound really weird after you just said there are too many deplorables in the US. But you have way too much faith in humanity.
They aren't just going to die off. They will make new deplorables, the new deplorables will be pissed off about more trivial, more moronic things. If you only run old white male candidates, they won't stop being pissed off, they will just find something else to be pissed off about, to use the overly used concept of an Overton Window. If you concede ideological ground, they will just get more extreme, something else the Dems do will trigger the deplorables and now you can't run non-evangelicals, or progressives, everyone has to wear little flags (oh wait....)
This is how you have two shitty parties to begin with. Unless your plan is basically accelerationism, and you are waiting for the US to go full genocide on it's neighbours then have the rest of the world step in (if they even can/do) or something, appeasement just makes the right demand more ground.
|
United States44240 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:06 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
This is going to sound really weird after you just said there are too many deplorables in the US. But you have way too much faith in humanity.
They aren't just going to die off. They will make new deplorables. If you only run old white male candidates, they won't stop being pissed off, they will just find something else to be pissed off about, to use the overly used concept of an Overton Window. If you concede ideological ground, they will just get more extreme, something else the Dems do will trigger the deplorables and now you can't run non-evangelicals, or progressives, everyone has to wear little flags (oh wait....)
This is how you have two shitty parties to begin with. Unless your plan is basically accelerationism, and you are waiting for the US to go full genocide on it's neighbours then have the rest of the world step in (if they even can/do) or something appeasement just makes the right demand more ground.
I'm not advocating for wholesale appeasement, I'm arguing for picking your battles in such a way that you take more ground from them than you otherwise would. Appeasement involves giving up ground, I think you take more ground if you sneak the progressive agenda in without triggering them.
|
The trade war between Canada and the USA is taking on a different tone as Carney solidifies his power base and Trump's power base continues to erode.
https://www.abc27.com/international/ap-as-canada-tries-to-reduce-its-dependence-on-the-us-its-leader-will-visit-china-to-rebuild-ties/
Canada aims to double its exports outside of the USA. Carney is headed to China... again.
The Finance Minister just returned.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/canadian-finance-minister-visit-china-over-april-1-4-chinas-finance-ministry-2026-04-01
In Canada, the Finance Minister is generally considered the PM's most important cabinet member.
PM Carney is gaining more legislative power as I type this. It appears the Liberals are going to win 2 out of the 3 bye-elections held today giving them 173 out of 343 seats. They have an outside shot at taking 3 out of 3. Personally, I'm taking the Bloc Quebecois to win in Terrebone.
I'm surprised we don't have Trump screaming about how the by-election in Quebec was caused by a mail-in ballot "Scam by the Scummy LIBERALS ! ! !". A botched mail-in voting process triggered this by-election. Just another reason to ban mail-in voting.
Looks like Canada will play China and the USA off of each other the same way Canada used to played Britain/England and the USA off of each other in the 20th Century.
On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:
It’s not worth poking that particular gorilla, even if you win.
sorry to nitpick here but i think in this particular analogy you are using ... it is poking a bear and not poking a gorilla. Around here "poking the bear" meant bothering Kyle Lowry. I never understood that because he was usually the smallest guy on the team.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:06 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
This is going to sound really weird after you just said there are too many deplorables in the US. But you have way too much faith in humanity.
They aren't just going to die off. They will make new deplorables. If you only run old white male candidates, they won't stop being pissed off, they will just find something else to be pissed off about, to use the overly used concept of an Overton Window. If you concede ideological ground, they will just get more extreme, something else the Dems do will trigger the deplorables and now you can't run non-evangelicals, or progressives, everyone has to wear little flags (oh wait....)
This is how you have two shitty parties to begin with. Unless your plan is basically accelerationism, and you are waiting for the US to go full genocide on it's neighbours then have the rest of the world step in (if they even can/do) or something appeasement just makes the right demand more ground. I'm not advocating for wholesale appeasement, I'm arguing for picking your battles in such a way that you take more ground from them than you otherwise would. Appeasement involves giving up ground, I think you take more ground if you sneak the progressive agenda in without triggering them.
Buddy, there is no 'without triggering them'. Did Biden calm them down? He looks pretty old and white to me. Does Maga seem more or less riled up now?
Maybe it was because he was Catholic, try a protestant, maybe that will do the trick.
|
United States44240 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:11 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 10:06 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
This is going to sound really weird after you just said there are too many deplorables in the US. But you have way too much faith in humanity.
They aren't just going to die off. They will make new deplorables. If you only run old white male candidates, they won't stop being pissed off, they will just find something else to be pissed off about, to use the overly used concept of an Overton Window. If you concede ideological ground, they will just get more extreme, something else the Dems do will trigger the deplorables and now you can't run non-evangelicals, or progressives, everyone has to wear little flags (oh wait....)
This is how you have two shitty parties to begin with. Unless your plan is basically accelerationism, and you are waiting for the US to go full genocide on it's neighbours then have the rest of the world step in (if they even can/do) or something appeasement just makes the right demand more ground. I'm not advocating for wholesale appeasement, I'm arguing for picking your battles in such a way that you take more ground from them than you otherwise would. Appeasement involves giving up ground, I think you take more ground if you sneak the progressive agenda in without triggering them. Buddy, there is no 'without triggering them'. Did Biden calm them down? He looks pretty old and white to me. Does Maga seem more or less riled up now? Maybe it was because he was Catholic, try a protestant, maybe that will do the trick.
Not at all sure where you're going with this. Yes, Biden literally beat Trump. Neither of the women we've sent to do the job did.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
Obama also beat Romney.
Your point was, even if they can win (due to the political balance/public opinion at the time), the Dems shouldn't pick candidates that trigger the right. Due to backlash.
My point is, by now, whoever you pick will trigger the right, doesn't actually matter anymore, they are not triggered by what the Dems do, they are triggered because they want to be triggered, and they will find some excuse irrespective of what the Dems do.
All that is achieved by 'not full appeasement' is you that you are allowing the right to move the Overton Window.
This is why many progressives have a problem with Liberals, it's not that they aren't allies, it's that they are really bad allies, that are constantly conceding ground to the opposition.
|
I don't think 'triggering the right' is the objection. There's plenty of racism/sexism across the US, not just on the right. You don't avoid putting another woman against trump because if you did win you'd trigger the right, but because you're hurting your own chances at victory by pretending racism/sexism don't exist on your side.
(I hear the echo of BJ insisting Kamala's defeat isn't just sexism, and that's probably correct. I'd still find it extremely unlikely that it helped her/dem chances)
|
United States44240 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:34 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Obama also beat Romney.
Your point was, even if they can win (due to the political balance/public opinion at the time), the Dems shouldn't pick candidates that trigger the right. Due to backlash.
My point is, by now, whoever you pick will trigger the right, doesn't actually matter anymore, they are not triggered by what the Dems do, they are triggered because they want to be triggered, and they will find some excuse irrespective of what the Dems do.
All that is achieved by 'not full appeasement' is you that you are allowing the right to move the Overton Window.
This is why many progressives have a problem with Liberals, it's not that they aren't allies, it's that they are really bad allies, that are constantly conceding ground to the opposition.
You're not responding to my argument. I'm not letting them move the Overton Window right, I'm not compromising on any issues, I'm advocating for the use of white men as a Trojan Horse to move the Overton Window left.
We've seen this a hundred times with Trump. He advocates for price caps on life saving meds, they cheer. He advocates for nationalization, they cheer. He advocates for breaking up big monopolies, they keep cheering. These dumb motherfuckers don't know what they're cheering for, they just like the feeling of a white man being on top again.
If the agenda was ministerial melatonin maximization then sure, it'd be compromising the agenda. But it's not.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:34 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Obama also beat Romney.
Your point was, even if they can win (due to the political balance/public opinion at the time), the Dems shouldn't pick candidates that trigger the right.
My point is, by now, whoever you pick will trigger the right, doesn't actually matter anymore, they are not triggered by what the Dems do, they are triggered because they want to be triggered, and they will find some excuse irrespective of what the Dems do.
All that is achieved by 'not full appeasement' is you that you are allowing the right to move the Overton Window.
This is why many progressives have a problem with Liberals, it's not that they aren't allies, it's that they are really bad allies.
It doesn’t really matter if you trigger the right so long as you win.
The winning is the thing.
Run a women and you’ve a 0% hit rate. I personally think they weren’t flawless candidates, equally I think that did count against them, often unfairly.
Clinton was a pretty strong candidate on a competence level (I’ve met her believe it or not), perhaps not the most charismatic or Everyman type of lass.
If she was ever correct, ironically it was on her gigantic ‘deplorables’ gaffe, one of those ‘yeah you’re right but maybe don’t say that?’
Both Clinton and Harris have attributed their losses to sexism to a degree. I tend to agree, although as I said they also weren’t flawless candidates.
Obama is increasingly looking a pretty freak outlier these days. An unusually gifted communicator, not without fault either, but a genuinely gifted politician all-round
If you’ve got an Obama in your pocket, I think you can win with that. If you don’t, I’m with Kwark in the ‘run a white guy’ camp.
I don’t think there’s any moving of the Overton window here. It’s more a matter of where the window currently is. One isn’t ceding ground, just observing the lay of the land.
Granted as I’ve previously stated I think the 2028 Presidency is basically a lock for the Dems unless they run some insane candidate
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:51 Fleetfeet wrote:
I don't think 'triggering the right' is the objection. There's plenty of racism/sexism across the US, not just on the right. You don't avoid putting another woman against trump because if you did win you'd trigger the right, but because you're hurting your own chances at victory by pretending racism/sexism don't exist on your side.
(I hear the echo of BJ insisting Kamala's defeat isn't just sexism, and that's probably correct. I'd still find it extremely unlikely that it helped her/dem chances)
I agree. And if this next election were going to be close (which it could still be, people have short memories), I wouldn't recommend running a woman (and certainly not Kamala).
But if the political lookout then looks like it does now (I still wouldn't recommend Kamala) but now is the chance to get someone progressive and actually get something through while you have the political capital.
On April 14 2026 10:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:34 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Obama also beat Romney.
Your point was, even if they can win (due to the political balance/public opinion at the time), the Dems shouldn't pick candidates that trigger the right. Due to backlash.
My point is, by now, whoever you pick will trigger the right, doesn't actually matter anymore, they are not triggered by what the Dems do, they are triggered because they want to be triggered, and they will find some excuse irrespective of what the Dems do.
All that is achieved by 'not full appeasement' is you that you are allowing the right to move the Overton Window.
This is why many progressives have a problem with Liberals, it's not that they aren't allies, it's that they are really bad allies, that are constantly conceding ground to the opposition. You're not responding to my argument. I'm not letting them move the Overton Window right, I'm not compromising on any issues, I'm advocating for the use of white men as a Trojan Horse to move the Overton Window left. We've seen this a hundred times with Trump. He advocates for price caps on life saving meds, they cheer. He advocates for nationalization, they cheer. He advocates for breaking up big monopolies, they keep cheering. These dumb motherfuckers don't know what they're cheering for, they just like the feeling of a white man being on top again. If the agenda was ministerial melatonin maximization then sure, it'd be compromising the agenda. But it's not.
I'm not advocating specifically to run a POC or woman either, I'm just saying if the election isn't going to be close (which right now it looks like, admittedly still FAR out from actual presidential elections). You shouldn't need to smuggle it through with a white man, because how the right feels about them doesn't matter as long as they win.
You certainly don't worry about the backlash in the next term, because the cancer of capitalism + attention economy + outrage media has long since metastisized. There is going to be backlash no matter who the Dems pick/what they do. Just pick whoever has the most coherent + progressive policy outlook and roll with it. If that's a black trans woman, so be it (ok that might actually lose the elections from an unlosable position, but you know what I mean).
If you think you might lose the elections, sure, pick a safe option to keep the fascists out. If you are going to win anyway, don't worry about backlash, it's coming regardless.
It would be great if you had a plethora of good options, and you could pick the safe but progressive option in a difficult election. But the Democratic party doesn't have a lot of good options right now, let alone safe ones.
Kamala, Buttigieg, Newsom are all active establishment Libs who will close ranks against progressive policy, and only one of them is 'safe'. So if the election outlook still looks like today closer to the elections,and the Dems were actually interested in getting something meaningful done outside of just keeping the Fascists out of office, they are going to have to take some risk.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:51 Fleetfeet wrote:
I don't think 'triggering the right' is the objection. There's plenty of racism/sexism across the US, not just on the right. You don't avoid putting another woman against trump because if you did win you'd trigger the right, but because you're hurting your own chances at victory by pretending racism/sexism don't exist on your side.
(I hear the echo of BJ insisting Kamala's defeat isn't just sexism, and that's probably correct. I'd still find it extremely unlikely that it helped her/dem chances)
And bingo goes his name-oh
Exactly, there’s plenty of racist, sexist shits on my side of the ledger to go with the anti-Semites etc.
You’re a lunatic if you don’t think this is a factor for left-leaning candidates amongst their own bases as well as oppositional ones.
Sexism and racism are either deeply ingrained and embedded at an even subconscious level, or they’re not.
The idea they’re merely confined to 40-50% of the population is preposterous
It’s something I’ve put a good amount of effort into mitigating in me adult life, there’s biases I rather don’t exist in my psyche but they’re hard to scrub.
And I’d wager a good chunk of folks don’t even try that
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
Just to be clear to all the replies. My problem is not against a pragmatic safe candidate to win the election.
It's against the concept of 'Backlash'. In today's media environment? You are going to get backlash anyway, that ship has long since sailed, hit an iceberg and sunk.
If you are filtering your candidates on who can actually win, fine.
If you are going to win anyway, filtering your candidate on how much backlash you are going to get in the next term is just volunteering ground to an opponent that is going to give you backlash anyway.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On April 14 2026 11:07 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:51 Fleetfeet wrote:
I don't think 'triggering the right' is the objection. There's plenty of racism/sexism across the US, not just on the right. You don't avoid putting another woman against trump because if you did win you'd trigger the right, but because you're hurting your own chances at victory by pretending racism/sexism don't exist on your side.
(I hear the echo of BJ insisting Kamala's defeat isn't just sexism, and that's probably correct. I'd still find it extremely unlikely that it helped her/dem chances) I agree. And if this next election were going to be close (which it could still be, people have short memories), I wouldn't recommend running a woman (and certainly not Kamala). But if the political lookout then looks like it does now (I still wouldn't recommend Kamala) but now is the chance to get someone progressive and actually get something through while you have the political capital. Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:52 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 10:34 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Obama also beat Romney.
Your point was, even if they can win (due to the political balance/public opinion at the time), the Dems shouldn't pick candidates that trigger the right. Due to backlash.
My point is, by now, whoever you pick will trigger the right, doesn't actually matter anymore, they are not triggered by what the Dems do, they are triggered because they want to be triggered, and they will find some excuse irrespective of what the Dems do.
All that is achieved by 'not full appeasement' is you that you are allowing the right to move the Overton Window.
This is why many progressives have a problem with Liberals, it's not that they aren't allies, it's that they are really bad allies, that are constantly conceding ground to the opposition. You're not responding to my argument. I'm not letting them move the Overton Window right, I'm not compromising on any issues, I'm advocating for the use of white men as a Trojan Horse to move the Overton Window left. We've seen this a hundred times with Trump. He advocates for price caps on life saving meds, they cheer. He advocates for nationalization, they cheer. He advocates for breaking up big monopolies, they keep cheering. These dumb motherfuckers don't know what they're cheering for, they just like the feeling of a white man being on top again. If the agenda was ministerial melatonin maximization then sure, it'd be compromising the agenda. But it's not. I'm not advocating specifically to run a POC or woman either, I'm just saying if the election isn't going to be close (which right now it looks like, admittedly still FAR out from actual presidential elections). You shouldn't need to smuggle it through with a white man, because how the right feels about them doesn't matter as long as they win. You certainly don't worry about the backlash in the next term, because the cancer of capitalism + attention economy + outrage media has long since metastisized. There is going to be backlash no matter who the Dems pick/what they do. Just pick whoever has the most coherent + progressive policy outlook and roll with it. If that's a black trans woman, so be it (ok that might actually lose the elections from an unlosable position, but you know what I mean). If you think you might lose the elections, sure, pick a safe option to keep the fascists out. If you are going to win anyway, don't worry about backlash, it's coming regardless. It would be great if you had a plethora of good options, and you could pick the safe but progressive option in a difficult election. But the Democratic party doesn't have a lot of good options right now, let alone safe ones. Kamala, Buttigieg, Newsom are all active establishment Libs who will close ranks against progressive policy, and only one of them is 'safe'. So if the election outlook still looks like today closer to the elections,and the Dems were actually interested in getting something meaningful done outside of just keeping the Fascists out of office, they are going to have to take some risk.
I fear it may be the opposite here. A complete shitshow may bring a yearning for like Obama era ‘normality’ rather than that for progressive causes,
I may be entirely wrong here, but us Brits aren’t far from rejecting progressive politics in favour of pretty stable centrist craic
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
